Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/Submersible infrastructure
This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete " ". *If you are suggesting a page for deletion, add your initial rationale to the section "Deletion rationale". *If you want to discuss this suggestion, add comments to the section "Discussion". *If a consensus has been reached, an administrator will explain the final decision in the section "Admin resolution". In all cases, please make sure to read and understand the deletion policy before editing this page. Deletion rationale I don't have the script of course, but from the background info provided seems to be more of a direction for what kind of visual should be shown on screen rather then a real name of the facility, or even such a type of facility. John Eaves' concept art not using that particular term further gives that impression. Too bad really, it's a great article otherwise. -- Capricorn (talk) 04:50, March 2, 2016 (UTC) Discussion How about renaming it "Xindi weapon construction facility"? That's a mouthful, I know. Or we could have a page "Unnamed facilities", but that doesn't seem quite right either. What do the characters call it? -- LauraCC (talk) 17:34, March 3, 2016 (UTC) *'Keep'. Plenty of other options here that don't require loosing this article, and I don't see a problem with the name provided the script info is correct. We do have worse script provided names after all. - 04:37, March 4, 2016 (UTC) :My concern isn't if it's not a nice enough name, but if it's intended as a name at all. Say what you will about tech cube, but the script clearly named the object as such. If it had just talked about "a cube-like object with a technological function" it would have been at unnamed tools and technology. -- Capricorn (talk) 08:50, March 4, 2016 (UTC) *'Keep'. The facility isn't named in dialogue. In the script, it's only ever called "gigantic, submersible infrastructure", which it's called twice. I don't see a problem with the page being where it's already at. --Defiant (talk) 08:28, March 4, 2016 (UTC) ::Even if it the script "name" is unusable for a stand alone article, we would still most likely merge this with Unnamed Federation space stations, after renaming that page to be broader in scope since it seems to be the only "unnamed stations" page we have outside of Earth spacedocks, and then use the current page name as a header there, or even "submerged ship yard" from the background note. Regardless, this info shouldn't be deleted. - 14:47, March 4, 2016 (UTC) :It's not a space station though, ultimatly it's just a building on a planet. If it did not receive a real name, then the planet page seems like the logical place to include the info to me. The Trelka V page covering info on the unnamed base it hosted is a good example of that principle in action. -- Capricorn (talk) 15:17, March 4, 2016 (UTC) :::Except that, as you know, the "planet page" this would be on will probably be buried in one of the unnamed planet pages. As I said, I see no real problem with this page being where it currently is. --Defiant (talk) 15:22, March 4, 2016 (UTC) ::conflict - "Space" in that page's title is already making assumptions, since at least two entries there could be planetary stations, because we don't know either way, so it's the easiest part to change. While we could move this to the planet's page, isn't that moving to the unnamed planets list, and it would be much easier to find these stations if there was a central location that listed them, which there doesn't seem to be right now. Categorization would be helped in that manner too. - 15:29, March 4, 2016 (UTC) ::::Keep with a rename or merge. --LauraCC (talk) 21:28, March 8, 2016 (UTC) :::::Keep as is and certainly no rename/merge; with no visual, or oral onscreen references, no behind-the-scenes references, no anything of the kind whatsoever, then script references, as apparently specified in this case, do become paramount, as emphatically stated in MA's guidelines--Sennim (talk) 22:39, March 11, 2016 (UTC) :Three things about that: 1) The page you linked is about citing and does not say anything like what you imply it says, emphatically or otherwise. 2) There is no imperative that a building that we've seen that was never named in ep or script or elsewhere needs to have an article no matter what, info on it can be presented elsewhere. And 3) as I've stated before, the reason I think this ought to be deleted is not because a script name is not good enough, but because it doesn't seem like a name at all. The script apparently specifies that we should see a gigantic, submersible infrastructure, that's all. -- Capricorn (talk) 01:57, March 12, 2016 (UTC) :::::With all due respect, while I might concede argument 1, I do not for arguments 2 and 3, the latter in particular as you yourself have presented this as an overriding argument in your favor for another case (and no, I do not desire to go any further into that one; all is said that needed to be said)...but hey, this is how I feel, and feeling no further incentive to go any further into this, and being as far as I know still free to express my opinions (Trump not being president yet – pun definitely intended), I therefore choose to uphold my vote...Sennim (talk) 02:38, March 12, 2016 (UTC) :Ouch, it sure is hard talking to someone who equates changing their mind to submitting to tyranny. Sorry if I typed something that felt like oppression, either here or on that other discussion that is apparently somehow related -- Capricorn (talk) 17:14, March 12, 2016 (UTC) Admin resolution Five votes to keep this article. One deletion vote. Article kept. Tom (talk) 11:24, March 18, 2016 (UTC) Submersible infrastructure